Industries
Controls that hold up in an audit and out of the way in production.
Per-data-set encryption and protection mean a regulated data set can carry heavier controls than a general one — on the same platform, without imposing that overhead on a latency-sensitive workload.
- Sub-millisecond result published
- Immutable snapshots
- Verified integrity
- EU data residency
The problem
Controls, continuity and latency pull in different directions.
A regulated financial estate has to satisfy three requirements that are in tension. Controls must be strong and demonstrable. Recovery must be provable, not assumed. And the transactional systems at the centre of it cannot absorb the latency cost of either.
Conventional architectures resolve this by separation: fast storage for the trading and core banking systems, heavily controlled storage for the regulated records, and a third arrangement for backup. Each adds a supplier, a console and an audit surface.
The supervisory expectation, meanwhile, has moved from documenting controls to evidencing them — and increasingly to demonstrating that recovery has actually been exercised rather than merely designed.
What STORViX does about it
Different controls for different data sets, one platform.
Because configuration lives at the data set, the regulated records and the latency-critical volumes can coexist without either dictating terms to the other.
Latency where it is needed
Accelerated All-Flash disk packs use a flash tier for I/O path metadata, and the Performance profile prioritises low latency and high throughput with matching cache and block size policies.
- AAF for the most demanding workloads
- NVMe SSDs, always dual controller
- Variable block size per data set
A published sub-millisecond result
Eteria, an Italian cloud and managed security provider, achieved sub-millisecond maximum latency on an all-flash AiRE configuration while maintaining continuously available replicated copies of customer VMs through Zerto.
- Sub-millisecond maximum latency
- AiRE 3282, all-flash
- Zerto replication integration
Controls evidenced per data set
Encryption and access privileges attach to the individual data set, so a supervisor's question about a specific category of records has a specific answer rather than an array-wide one.
- Per-data-set encryption
- Per-data-set access privileges
- 2FA on administrative access
Recovery points an attacker cannot rewrite
Copy-on-write snapshots are immutable once taken. For an operational resilience requirement, the distinction between a backup that could be deleted and a recovery point that cannot be is the whole argument.
- Immutable once taken
- Instant revert
- One-way replication into Vault
Recovery you can afford to rehearse
Instant clones consume no additional space, so exercising a restore into an isolated copy is cheap enough to do on a regular schedule rather than annually.
- Space-free instant clones
- Testable without capacity impact
- DRaaS for orchestrated recovery
Integrity that is verified, not assumed
Checksums to the root node are verified on every read, with automatic repair. For records that must be produced years later and stand as evidence, detection of silent corruption is not optional.
- End-to-end checksums
- Self-repair from redundancy
- RAID-Z and mirror topologies
Outcomes
What changes for a regulated estate
One platform, fewer audit surfaces
Consolidating without levelling down reduces the number of systems that each have to be separately evidenced.
Recovery testing that actually happens
When rehearsing a restore costs no capacity, the schedule stops being the constraint on how often it is done.
Answers at the granularity of the question
Per-data-set controls mean the answer to a question about one category of records does not require caveating about everything else on the array.
European jurisdiction, stated plainly
A Swedish supplier with replication into named EU data centres, under a zero-knowledge privacy policy and a data processing agreement beyond the statutory minimum.
A note on regulatory claims
This page describes technical controls. It does not assert that deploying AiRE satisfies DORA, NIS2, any prudential requirement, or any supervisory expectation. Those assessments consider governance, process, third-party risk management and technology together, and they belong to the institution and its advisers.
What is stated here is what the platform does and what STORViX publishes about it. Where a control needs to be described precisely enough for a supervisory submission, that is a conversation with an architect rather than a datasheet extract.
Any claim on this site not backed by supplied STORViX source material is visibly marked as requiring validation rather than presented as established fact — including in the vendor comparison pages.
Start from the control you have to evidence.
Bring the specific obligation, the latency budget of the system it applies to, and the recovery objective. Those three constraints determine the design more than any feature comparison will.